Attorneys representing Kilmar Abrego Garcia have criticized the Department of Justice for allegedly trying to bias the jury by introducing “unfair” accusations that could sway their judgment. They argue that these tactics support Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s public comments labeling Garcia as a “horrible” individual.

In a detailed document filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the defense responded to the DOJ’s attempt to present evidence of alleged “pornographic messages” between Garcia and a minor. This minor, described as a “known informant” previously compensated for her cooperation with law enforcement, was reportedly 15 years old when the communications took place in 2020.

Garcia’s legal team expressed willingness to confirm his use of two specific phone numbers, aiming to prevent unrelated allegations of domestic violence from being used to establish the link to those numbers. They contend that messages exchanged over Snapchat between a user named “soytugaa” and the informant should not be admissible as evidence.

On November 13, the Trump administration submitted a notice indicating that Witness-1, referred to as N.V., although not directly involved in the smuggling conspiracy outlined in the indictment, could testify about Garcia’s attempts to recruit her for the operation during the period in question.

The DOJ alleges that this witness will disclose how Garcia invited her on smuggling trips, claiming that they exchanged explicit messages and videos through a messaging app while he was 25 and she was 15 years old.

Claiming prosecutors did “not intend to offer these messages as evidence during Witness-1’s direct testimony,” the DOJ said it could still “foresee […] multiple lines of cross examination that would open the door to these messages being admitted on re-direct examination” — in the event Abrego Garcia “attack[ed] Witness-1’s personal knowledge of the defendant[.]”

The government said that would transform what appears to be inadmissible character evidence into admissible evidence that would tend to help the DOJ prove the witness’s “close relationship” with Abrego Garcia.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have now countered that “evidence of alleged pornographic messages exchanged” with the witness should be excluded, and for multiple reasons.

For one, the DOJ hasn’t proved that Abrego Garcia was using the “soytugaa” Snapchat account at the time the messages were sent, the filing said.

Second, the defense claims the DOJ has been cagey about screenshot evidence of the November and December 2020 messages, which allegedly show “adult pornography […] involving third-party adults, not Witness-1 or the user ‘soytugaa.’”

“Even though the screenshots do not depict any sexually explicit content involving minors, the government has not provided these unblurred screenshots to the defense and has instead informed the defense that they can be reviewed in person at the United States Attorney’s Office,” the filing stated. “The government also revealed that it does not have any other records of purported communications between Witness-1 and the account ‘soytugaa.’”

“At most, the screenshots show that one of the chat participants saved what appears to be an image depicting nude bodies to the chat; it is not clear from the screenshot which of the users sent that image,” the defense claimed.

Taken together, the defense asserted that allowing this “unfair” prejudicial evidence would do little to prove the alleged smuggling offenses or a “close relationship” with the witness. Rather, the “lurid and extraordinarily inflammatory” evidence would serve to “distract the jury” and shore up in the jury’s mind that Abrego Garcia is a “horrible individual,” as Noem once put it.

“The government seeks to use Witness-1’s testimony to prove that Mr. Abrego is a ‘child predator’ who ‘will never be loose on American streets,’ not for any permissible purpose under the Federal Rules of Evidence,” the filing concluded.

In recent days, Abrego Garcia’s legal team also accused the Trump administration of “misleading” a Maryland federal judge in his civil case about Costa Rica’s willingness to accept him upon removal from the U.S., reiterating claims that government “vindictiveness” is running rampant.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, a Barack Obama appointee, two months ago ordered an evidentiary hearing, finding that the “totality of events” surrounding Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation and ensuing prosecution “creates a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that there is a ‘realistic likelihood of vindictiveness’ that entitles Abrego to discovery” before his motion to dismiss the criminal case is decided.

Abrego Garcia has attempted to compel Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to testify, but the DOJ has vehemently resisted.

Crenshaw separately slammed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Noem for “troubling” out-of-court statements about the defendant.

In August, Noem branded the defendant an “MS-13 gang member, human trafficker, serial domestic abuser, and child predator,” a statement that was again “contrary” to local rules guarding against extrajudicial statements, Crenshaw noted.

Initially scheduled for early November, the judge called off the evidentiary hearing and rescheduled it for Dec. 8 and 9. But on Thursday, Crenshaw canceled the hearing again — this time not setting new dates.